Carter v. State, No. 24750

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBURNETT; FINNEY
Citation495 S.E.2d 773,329 S.C. 355
Docket NumberNo. 24750
Decision Date19 January 1998
PartiesRichard CARTER, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.

Page 773

495 S.E.2d 773
329 S.C. 355
Richard CARTER, Respondent,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
No. 24750.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted Oct. 22, 1997.
Decided Jan. 19, 1998.

Page 775

[329 S.C. 358] Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, Assistant Attorney General Allen Bullard, Columbia, for petitioner.

Assistant Appellate Defender Lisa G. Echols, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for respondent.

[329 S.C. 359] BURNETT, Justice:

The State appeals the grant of post conviction relief (PCR) to respondent. We reverse.

FACTS

Respondent was arrested in December 1990 for manufacturing methamphetamine ("crank") and money laundering. After extensive plea negotiations, respondent waived presentment of the indictments to the grand jury and pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine and money laundering. He was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years and twenty years, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. No direct appeal was taken.

Respondent filed a PCR application alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and his guilty plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered. After an evidentiary hearing, the PCR judge found respondent's guilty plea counsel ineffective for failing to properly advise respondent of the maximum penalty respondent could receive on the indictment for manufacturing methamphetamine. Further, the PCR judge found there was confusion on the part of the guilty plea judge and the solicitor during the guilty plea proceeding over the maximum penalty for manufacturing methamphetamine. Thus, respondent's guilty plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered. The PCR judge ordered the pleas vacated.

ISSUE

Did the PCR judge err in finding respondent's guilty pleas were not voluntarily and knowingly entered?

DISCUSSION

The State contends the PCR judge erred in finding respondent's guilty pleas were involuntary due to counsel's advice that the maximum penalty on the manufacturing charge was a thirty year sentence for a second offense. 1 We agree.

The test for determining the validity of a guilty plea based upon alleged ineffective assistance of counsel is whether [329 S.C. 360] counsel's advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases and whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pled guilty. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Ray v. State, 303 S.C. 374, 401 S.E.2d 151 (1991); Hinson v. State, 297 S.C. 456, 377 S.E.2d 338 (1989). "A defendant who pleads guilty upon the advice of counsel may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing the advice he received from counsel was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." Richardson v. State, 310 S.C. 360, 363, 426 S.E.2d 795, 797 (1993).

Crank is methamphetamine which is a Schedule II drug. South Carolina Code Ann. § 44-53-370(b)(2) (Supp.1996) provides a penalty of ten years imprisonment or a $10,000 fine for a second offense of manufacturing a Schedule II drug. Schedule II includes methamphetamine. S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-

Page 776

210(d) (1976 & Supp.1996). " 'Crank' means amphetamine or methamphetamine...." S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-110 (Supp.1996). South Carolina Code Ann. § 44-53-375, as it read at the time of petitioner's offense, provided that a person who violates § 44-53-370 by manufacturing "crank" (methamphetamine) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for no less than twenty-five years and no more than thirty years and fined no less than $50,000, for a second offense. 2

Respondent waived presentment of the indictments to the grand jury. The indictment is captioned "Manufacturing Methamphetamine 44-53-370" on both its back and its face. The body of the indictment states respondent did "unlawfully manufacture methamphetamine without first obtaining a license to do so."

At the PCR hearing, respondent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 practice notes
  • Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 14 Octubre 2002
    ...establishes it was voluntarily and knowingly made. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 495 S.E.2d 773 (1998); Dover v. State, 304 S.C. 433, 405 S.E.2d 391 A defendant who enters a plea on the advice of counsel may attack the ......
  • State v. Salisbury, No. 2792.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 17 Febrero 1998
    ...Issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal. Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362, 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998). A judge's sentencing authority, however, is distinct from his or her jurisdiction. State v. Bynes, 304 S.C. 62, 40......
  • State v. LaCoste, No. 3383.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 4 Septiembre 2001
    ...is a lesser included offense of the crime charged in the indictment. State v. Lynch, 344 S.C. 635, 545 S.E.2d 511 (2001); Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 495 S.E.2d 773 (1998). Upon indictment for a greater offense, a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to convict a defendant for any......
  • State v. Covert, No. 4071.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 17 Enero 2006
    ...of law that lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at anytime, including for the first time on appeal. Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 495 S.E.2d 773 (1998); State v. Richburg, 304 S.C. 162, 403 S.E.2d 315 (1991). Additionally, an exception exists where the interests of minors or ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
65 cases
  • Joseph v. State, No. 25539.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 14 Octubre 2002
    ...establishes it was voluntarily and knowingly made. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 495 S.E.2d 773 (1998); Dover v. State, 304 S.C. 433, 405 S.E.2d 391 A defendant who enters a plea on the advice of counsel may attack the ......
  • State v. Salisbury, No. 2792.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 17 Febrero 1998
    ...Issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal. Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362, 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998). A judge's sentencing authority, however, is distinct from his or her jurisdiction. State v. Bynes, 304 S.C. 62, 40......
  • State v. LaCoste, No. 3383.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 4 Septiembre 2001
    ...is a lesser included offense of the crime charged in the indictment. State v. Lynch, 344 S.C. 635, 545 S.E.2d 511 (2001); Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 495 S.E.2d 773 (1998). Upon indictment for a greater offense, a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to convict a defendant for any......
  • State v. Covert, No. 4071.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 17 Enero 2006
    ...of law that lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at anytime, including for the first time on appeal. Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 495 S.E.2d 773 (1998); State v. Richburg, 304 S.C. 162, 403 S.E.2d 315 (1991). Additionally, an exception exists where the interests of minors or ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT